law_articles

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states a return value but doesn't explain what 'controlled matrix' means, whether it filters by article numbers, or any error behavior. The absence of any behavioral detail beyond the return type makes it insufficient for understanding side effects or data handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, extremely concise with no redundancy. However, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, as the phrase 'controlled matrix' is not elaborated. It scores moderately because it is efficiently worded but under-specifies the tool's behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the matrix contains and how to interact with the tool. It also doesn't mention the parameter or any use cases. For a tool that appears to fetch legal articles, this is inadequate to guide an agent effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter `article_numbers_json` is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate by explaining how the parameter influences the result. The tool name and description give no hint that the parameter likely specifies a list of article numbers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it returns a controlled matrix of articles from LFPDPPP 2025, which identifies the tool's function and the specific legal corpus. The term 'controlled matrix' is somewhat vague, but the verb and resource are clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools focused on case processing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention when to prefer this tool over others or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.